National Laws And Policies

Australia has been divided for too long and separated by red tape and different state standards. There are so many areas that could be unified like a national drivers license, national employment qualifications and national laws. And yet it seems common sense is ridiculed by politics only adding a detrimental effect.

Our population is only small and yet we have to contend with this irregular situation time and time again. For the first time in politics for many years I feel the government now has a chance to put things right and get on track with National systems in place rather than all the uneven red tape scattered throughout all the states.

Would I have to accept Victorians as being Australian?
fluff4

No, we plan to secede.

...and the railway lines.
Are they still different gauges? Terrible for defence. Shocking if they are. I wonder if anyone cares.

hi to all te forgotten australians

just wanting you all out their to get behind us forgotten australians and get the state of new south wales and other states to have the senate inquiries

the forgotten australians report august 2004 and the second report protecting vunlerable children in institutional care and out of home care , march 2005

we are real victims of rapes and abuse of which occurred through out the states run institutions of new south wales and australia

the australian goverment and the state leader of new south wales is well aware of these inquiries and still today will not addmitt to the truth of what we suffered as children who were being abused raped sodimissed made slaves for the purpose of the goverments gain and also useing us children for the illeagle activities within these institutions

also the goverment says you can obtian your juvenille records either from d.o.c.s. or the juvenille justice centre , well i rang them this week both of those places and told me they have no records of me ever being in these places

yet i have actual court documents to prove i was also records from the institutions of which were obtained in 2001,2002,

yet i was told on the phone by these two departments that no records exsist of me being in these places

this is how much the state of new south wales and that of the australian goverment are covering up the rapes and abuse that victims like me suffered while in state care ,

give justice to us victims

regards huffnpuff

Dear picman2,

What you're suggesting makes perfect sense, but I'm afraid it's going to be some time before any of it happens.

We may have to become a Republic first - because unless I'm mistaken -
our federal laws are still governed by the High Court - which is still
accountable to the Privy Council in Britain. (We're still a British colony).

Only after becoming a Republic - can we then start ironing out the
States.

And my goodness - there are so many laws to deal with.

But first things first...

Good idea though...

The more federal power there is, the more open and flexible their laws must be. So i'm against it simply because I know how authoritarian our politicians are. They just can't seem to help grovelling before their respective, repressive ideologies.

Foxy
you have right, we're still a British colony.

'you have right, we're still a British colony'

What's so bad about that?

Dear Austin,

Because some of us no longer want to be 'powerless.'

So, Foxy, what are your visions of an independent Australia?

Hopefully not Paul Keating's 'Banana Republic'.

I find that most of those who scream out against being a 'British Colony' (which we really are not) are those of non-British extraction. I'm sure that Antonios would be happy if we were a Greek colony.

Technically, we don't have to answer to Britain if it doesn't suit us. Where were we during the Falklands War? The war against the IRA? Yet we are quick to jump for the 'Bush Wars'. I only fear that if we cut all ties with Britain, we will come even more under the American wing.
Surely you don't want to live in the 51st state.

Finally, I don't see our politicians as possessing the maturity and common sense to guide a totally independent nation. They're too busy seeing what they can get from the trough.

Dear Austin,

I don't want to get into a great discussion about the pros and cons of
Australia becoming a republic with you because I suspect that we won't
agree on very much at all. However, courtesy demands a reply from me, so here it is:

Borrowing a foreign head of state, which despite the facade of an "Australian Crown," accurately describes the reality in Australia, is unsatisfactory in at least three respects.

First, it is impractical, and detracts from national self-respect to depend on another country-over whose constitutional processes Australia has no control-for filling an essential constitutional office. The continuity of Australian government is thereby left contingent upon the actions of another country. If Britain were to become a republic, Australian government would be thrown into disarray.

Australia should be constitutionally free-standing; it should fill all public offices through its own constitutional processes.

Second, a head of state in the Westminster system occupies a largely sumbolic office, personifying the nation and seeking to represent its essential ethos and aspirations.

But what is the symbolism in a multicultural nation in the Southern Hemisphere between Southeast Asia and Oceania whose head of state is the Queen of the United Kingdom, a woman living at the opposite end of the earth?

What image does this present to the Australian people and to the international community? Surely it one of a country that has not completely outgrown its colonial status, that has not yet reached constitutional and cultural maturity, and that lacks the self-confidence of full nationhood.

Australia's Asian neighbours must inevitably wonder whether Australia is really reconciled to its place in the world-both geographically and culturally-when a European monarch sits at the apex of its governmental system. This failure to take the last small step to full nationhood retards both national self-esteem and cultural self-assurance, and detrimentally affects Australia's relations with its Asian neighbours.

CONT'D...

Thirdly, Australia's multiculturalism-the recognition of the equal worth of its diverse people-is contradcited by privileging its British component through the office of head of state. Moreover, its method of selection, involving hereditary succession, the exclusion of Roman Catholics, and preference for male heirs, all run counter to the fundamental Australian values of equality and a "fair go" for all, regardless of race, religion, or sex.

Republican government is founded on popular sovereignty. All public officers derive their authority from the people either directly through election or indirectly through appointment by those elected by the people. Australian government is already essentially republican in that its constitution was approved by the electors before enactment at Westminster and can be amended only with their consent in a referendum. Public officers are chosen directly or indirectly by the people, with one significant excpetion: the office at the apex of the system, the head of state.

The principle of hereditary succession to public office contradicts not only the core republican principle of popular sovereignty, but also its more fundamental corollary: the equal dignity and worth of every human being. In a hereditary monarchy, some people are born superior to others.

Republican government also connotes compliance with the rule of law,
implementation of the separation of powers, and protection of individual rights and freedoms. Australian government is already republican in this respect; once the monarchy is abolished and the office of head of state is reconstituted on republican principles, Australia will truly be a republic.

Foxy, what makes you think we won't agree on very much at all?

Like you, I would prefer Australia to be a republic. I’m certainly no monarchist. It's just that there's no-one here capable of becoming a true head of state, as I’ve already stated. That's why I wasn't too fazed about us being seen as (unrealistically) a British colony. Mind you, our majority is still of Brit/Irish descent.

Right now, if the public was asked to nominate for an Aussie President, who do you think would be named? Favourite footy stars, cricket 'legends', 'You Think You Can Dance' contestants or 'Big Brother' characters? An Aussie actor? If you think I exaggerate, just look at some of the ‘participants’ of the 2020 summit.

I disagree that we are 'dependent on another country'. Most of this thinking comes from a collective inferiority complex that has no basis. Also, how does this perceived dependence affect our relations with our Asian neighbours?

You think that Australia's multiculturalism is contradicted by privileging its British component. Britain is even more multi-cultural than Australia so what do you mean here?

I note that you never commented on the fact that our links to the USA are now stronger than those to ‘the old country’. We don’t fight Brit wars anymore but are always there for the Yanks.

Who would you like for president?

Dear Austin,

Who would I like for President?

Not Barry Humphries.

Seriously though, let's become a republic first.

Cheers.

Seriously, Foxy, we can't consider becoming a republic and then root around for a leader.

Both must come at the same time. Otherwise we'll be likened to a headless chicken.

Dear Austin,

I'm sure that there will be quite a few suitable people who will be
nominated for the position.

Along the lines of Malcolm Fraser for example.

He was the first PM to seriously address the issues of Indigenous Australians, and after leaving office has become very much an elder statesman, focusing much on human rights and poverty.

Anyway, as I said - let's wait and see whose name comes up.

I'm sure there will be quite a competent choice.

Australia is after all no longer the cultural backwater of the 1950s.